EDITORIAL: A true 'Net loss

The telecommunications billThe telecommunications billPresident Clinton has signedThe telecommunications billPresident Clinton has signedinto law has frighteningThe telecommunications billPresident Clinton has signedinto law has frighteningimplications for all citizensThe telecommunications billPresident Clinton has signedinto law has frighteningimplications for all citizensof the virtual world.The telecommunications billPresident Clinton has signedinto law has frighteningimplications for all citizensof the virtual world.______________________________ Title V states that anyone using a "telecommunications device" who "makes, creates, or solicits, and initiates the transmission of any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person" will be subject up to $250,000 in fines and two years in prison. While the intent of this amendment to the telecommunications bill is obviously an attempt to end the spread of pornography on the Internet, its scope is incredibly broad and ill-defined. Along with eliminating any and all information about sex on-line, this law has the potential to make it illegal to discuss electronically such important topics as abortion, rape and breast cancer. The Internet is not just some trendy "information superhighway." It is a source for millions of people to freely exchange thoughts, opinions, ideas and facts. It permits the University to communicate with prospective students, parents, alumni and colleagues in academia around the world, and it allows this newspaper and other mainstream daily publications like The Philadelphia Inquirer to be available to millions at the touch of a button or the click of a mouse. Before the telecommunications act, cyberspace was the one place where true freedom of speech still existed. But that day has passed. Now, in the government's view, we need the watchful eye of Big Brother to determine what is decent and acceptable. As editors of a newspaper published in print as well as on the World Wide Web, we are outraged by this infringement upon our basic First Amendment rights. The federal government has turned "freedom of the press" into "freedom of the press, but not on the Internet." More importantly, with this act the federal government has restricted the one thing that has made the Internet such an important part of our lives: its ability to be a free forum, a virtual marketplace of ideas. The implications of this type of censorship are terrifying. Here at Penn there is already concern that University-maintained Web sites, ranging from Student Health to the library, may violate the law. We applaud those who turned their Web pages black in protest during the 48 hours following the signing of the bill. Their actions were a powerful symbol showing the near-universal dislike for the CDA. We also praise the people and organizations who are making a continued stand against Title V -- including the group of students planning a protest outside Irvine Auditorium before Vice President Al Gore's speech tomorrow. Freedom of speech is a vital part of our society, and we can only hope that the courts will eventually find this law unconstitutional, thus restoring the invaluable freedom we once had.